remcob

I remember that saw blade (4:48) from when I first saw it years ago and I'll never forget it. There's something terrifying about it. Probably the rapid organic movement and complete lack of cover.

The R0-R7 naming is pretty widely supported. For example by LLVM's assembler, so you can use it in Rust or C(++) inline assembly.

I'll take you on that bet. Given his work on poverty, I wouldn't be surprised if he knows the approximate price of milk in supermarkts around the world.

IMHO, The primary thing wealth gives you is the time and resources to understand society in great depth. I just wish more wealthy people took that opportunity, but Gates is one of the leaders here.

I wonder if the same app will allow updating those.

True, and this is a counterexample to my claim that the parent would retain the symmetry. I think it can be refined though:

The parent still has hor/ver mirror symmetries, and the solution rotated is also a solution. So there is a set of (in this case two) parents that is invariant under the same symmetries.

In general, a parent should still be a parent when any of the targets symmetries are applied. (But it wouldn't necessarily be the same parent).

This can be captured in a SAT by insisting that any symmetry of a solution is also a solution, which adds a lot of new constraints and no new variables, so should help with finding.

I'd like to add an entry:

Me. 42 Mendeleevication (pseudoscience): Laying things out in a periodic table to make it look scientific.

You can see this in the flower image. The target image has a lot of symmetries (reflections, rotations) that also exist in the GoL ruleset. So must be a parent that also has these symmetries. Yet the found solution has none of these symmetries.

Thank you for this very well articulated response.

I don't see why locality is a requirement. What is it that makes a theory with particles being points in a six-dimensional position-momentum space acceptable, but particles being complex-valued functions over a three dimensional space unacceptable?

> it requires that we accept the idea of the wave function (something we never see or interact with directly, for which we have no direct evidence) as fundamental and real AND that we take our day to day experiences, upon which all of our physical sciences are based, as derived, perhaps even, in important ways, not really real.

I see no issue in pure quantum states being fundamental. Our day to day experiences are not compatible with a number of things we hold to be true. Take the physics of fluids for example, it suggests that liquids are infinitely dividable, which we know to be false. In that sense, fluid physics is decidedly not real. But it can also be derived as a very good approximation of the underlying reality on larger scales, similarly to how classical theories are good approximations of the underlying quantum reality on larger scales.

I do realize that my interpretation requires decoherence to work such that the pure quantum states reduce to ones that are well approximated by classical theories, and I'm not sure if we have evidence that decoherence works this way.

I don't see many-world arising from decoherence, please elaborate.

Decoherence doesn't give you single outcomes, but it gives you a classical probability distribution (like an enthropic ensemble) over pure quantum states, with the pure quantum states having reduced coherence (i.e. they 'look classical').

Classical probability distributions are nothing new, we don't need a many worlds interpretation to explain the butterfly effect.

Quantum states with a small amount of residual superposition also seem fine to me, as long as you are willing to accept that the world is ultimately quantum and not classical. That we don't see any quantum effects in daily life is just because the scales are too small, similar to how we don't observe relativistic effects because the scales are too large, or how we don't observe the atomicity of water. But in all these cases we can do experiments to reveal the true nature.

To me decoherence always seemed so obviously the solution to these 'problems in QM' that I genuinely don't understand why are still having these quasi-scientific discussions. Am I missing something or is there a ton of uninformed arm-chair science going on?

What are the scientific arguments against decoherence? What do up-to-date theoreticians think?

It's unclear to me from your comment whether you advocate over or under specifying the norm. "some distance" is ambiguous.

In order to say "that's against the rules" but allow some leeway, you need it to be under-specified so you can enforce it selectively.

But the next part suggest you over-set the norm, so people with honest reasons can go beyond the ideal without breaking the rules and everyone has an moral duty to stay well within the specified norms.

I've been studying Chebfun lately, a Matlab library implementing these approximation techniques. It's written by some of the leading researchers in the field, and their documentation is so well done that it reads like a graduate textbook on the subject:

http://www.chebfun.org/docs/guide/

In particular chapter 4 is relevant.

You don't have to take a pay cut! We from MegaCorp value excellent politicians like yourselves, if you get elected we will have many speaking and consulting opportunities for you. Just make sure that you keep doing the right thing and stand for the truth! (Unlike our previous guy, who started believing in lies about MegaCorp -- we had to discontinue his contracts.)

Indeed, especially considering that this is "1%-2% of all drownings". It says nothing about how many people are suffering from this after a near-drowning and subsequently recover from a near-second-drowning. For all we know more than half of the near-drownings may end up with secondary symptoms.

Also we don't know how many near-drownings vs drownings there are. Lot of good statistical quiz questions in here.

I heard about about a similar (same?) method before and wrote about it here: https://ethresear.ch/t/optimizing-merkle-tree-multi-queries/...

In the comments Vitalik links to his implementation.

Good point. I find that carefully phrasing the problem is half the solution. For example, the entire field of cryptography would not have moved beyond the one-time-pad if it wasn't for a rephrasing from 'impossible' to 'computationally infeasible'. Similarly with probabilistic algorithms.

In the Byzantine Generals Problem as stated in the paper, there is a single commander that decides on the plan. Paricipants known the identity of the commander in advance. In this case signatures are sufficient.

The problem you are describing is a different one, where there is no single commander and a group of generals needs to collectively decide on a plan. There signatures are indeed not sufficient. The way proof-of-work solves it is by randomly electing one of the generals to become commander for this decision round (i.e. 'it mines the block'). The random election is somewhat imperfect, leading to second order complexities such as probabilistic finality.

As it says in the abstract: "With unforgeable written messages, the problem is solvable for any number of generals and possible traitors". See also chapter 4.

As soon as you allow digital signatures, you have unforgeable messages and Byzantine Generals is solved. No need for consensus algorithms, proof of work, or blockchains.

The LLVM Kaleidoscope tutorial [0] builds up to a single file implementation. It's a very good introduction. I'd also like to offer my winning Brainfuck compiler + direct threaded VM implemented in Ethereum assembly [1].

[0] https://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/MyFirstLanguageFrontend/index...

[1] https://g.solidity.cc/submissions/wicketh.eth/9a5cb12b504b81...

You don't need any magnetic field to distinguish the north-south direction. It is simply the direction shadows are cast when the sun is at its brightest. Consequently, plants will have adjusted to it, providing many (subconscious) clues. The sun makes things strongly non-isotropic, and these clues are everywhere; in the light, in the plants, in the wind, in sound, in urban planning, etc.

I expect most of the anecdotal 'evidence' to be explained by this. What would compel me is if randomly changing the magnetic field correlates with the observations, which is what this study seems to have done.

> To prevent integer overflow on large allocations, we use the checked_add method. If the resulting end address of the allocation is larger than the end address of the heap, we return a null pointer to signal an out-of-memory situation.

The overflow scenario should be treated the same as the out-of-memory scenario and also return null. The hypothetical result of the addition would always be larger than `heap_end`.

Suppose you allocate heap at the far end of the address space, then all out-of-memory events suddenly become overflows.

> The main limitation of a bump allocator is that it can only reuse deallocated memory after all allocations have been freed.

It can do better, in `dealloc` you can use `ptr` and `layout` to check if the allocation is at the end of the allocated region. If it is, `bump.next` can be reduced by `layout.size()`. This is optimal for lifo/stack style allocation patterns.

Alignment complicates implementation since precise information on the previous value of `bump.next` is lost. There are way to solve this, for example by always padding to some maximum alignment, or writing the padding size in the padding.

From what a local told me, the car horns in Mumbai are by design less loud than the ones in Europe or the US. This fits my experience, but that might also be simply being used to the sound.

I think grandparent was not about having surveillance programs or not, but about whether the government is being held accountable to it's own laws. A quality that is worryingly slipping in several nations. Hence the emphasis on 'illegal' and the shoddy investigation with little follow-up.

Yes, the energy required to make permanent deformations in a material is unrelated to it's kinetic energy.

This would be challenging with modern codecs using delta frames. The only way I can see it work is precomputing all frames from the preceeding keyframe. Doable, but decent effort for a fairly obscure feature.

But did video formats back then use delta frames?

The way to combine hash functions for collision resistance is not composition (as with encryption) but concatenation: H'(file) = (H1(file), H2(file)). Now to have a collision on H' you need to collide both H1 and H2. But now pre-image resistance suffers.

Would you consider the source lost if the (minified) javascript was compiled from TypeScript?

But we are talking about Sagittarius A*.

For bidirectional communications you need to transmit, and this means you send out a signal that can be easily triangulated.

AFAIK, the Libra design is very centralized (which follows from the throughput requirements). All usage of it would be through Facebook's servers. So that would be where you can implement any censorship.